Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23265 

al. 2005, p. 217). Disturbances such as 

wildfire and insect outbreaks are 

increasing and are likely to intensify 

with drier soils and a longer growing 

season (Field et al. 2007, p. 619). The 

mountain pine beetle has expanded its 

range into areas previously too cold to 

support it (Field et al. 2007, p. 623; 

Saunders et al. 2008, pp. 21, 23). The 

USFS predicts that in Colorado and 

southern Wyoming, mountain pine 

beetles will likely kill the majority of 

mature lodgepole pine forests within the 

next 3 to 5 years (Saunders et al. 2008, 

pp. 21 and 23). 

Aquatic insects may respond to 

elevated temperatures in the following 

ways: (1) Behaviorally, by emigrating 

from, or changing distribution within, 

stressed regions; or (2) physiologically, 

by adjusting the duration and extent of 

growth and development in immature 

stages, and ultimate size, condition, and 

fecundity as adults (Williams and 

Feltmate 1992, p. 285). Impacts from 

global warming will vary greatly at the 

species level (Williams and Feltmate 

1992, p. 287). The Arapahoe snowfly 

will likely be affected by warmer 

streamflows and by continuing 

outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. 

However, we cannot predict the extent 

to which the species will be able to 

adjust behaviorally or physiologically to 

these changes. We will assess this factor 

more thoroughly during our status 

review for the species. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence such as 

the apparent small population size of 

the Arapahoe snowfly, especially given 

the stressors it faces from recreation, 

grazing, and certain forest management 

practices. The species also will likely be 

affected by climate change; however, we 

cannot currently predict the extent to 

which it will be able to adjust to these 

changes. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Arapahoe snowfly throughout 

its entire range may be warranted. This 

finding is based on information 

provided under factors A and E. The 

information provided in the petition 

under factors B, C, and D is not 

substantial. 

We are not aware of any information 

regarding impacts from factors A and E 

that specifically pertains to the 

Arapahoe snowfly. However, there is 

adequate information documenting that 

recreation, grazing, carbaryl spraying, 

and road usage are ongoing in Elkhorn 

Creek and that recreation is occurring in 

Young Gulch. There also is adequate 

information documenting the likely 

adverse effects of these activities on 

stoneflies. Consequently, we have 

concluded that since the Arapahoe 

snowfly is a species of stonefly, it is 

likely being adversely affected by these 

activities, particularly in view of its very 

narrow known range and rarity within 

that range. We will assess all of these 

factors more thoroughly during our 

status review for the species. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Arapahoe snowfly may be warranted, 

we are initiating a status review to 

determine whether listing the Arapahoe 

snowfly under the Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

necessarily mean that the 12-month 

finding will result in a warranted 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or upon request 

from the Colorado Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Regional Office and 

the Colorado Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Rowan Gould, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9973 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0007; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Smooth-Billed Ani 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the smoothbilled ani (Crotophaga ani) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the species may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the smooth-billed ani or its 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R4–ES–2011–0007. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th 

Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960–3559. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Spencer Simon, Assistant Field 

Supervisor, of the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES) by telephone 772–562– 

3909, or by facsimile to 772–562–4288. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On April 5, 2005, we received a 

petition, dated March 23, 2005, from 

Robert Showler of Homestead, Florida, 

requesting that the smooth-billed ani 

(Crotophaga ani), a bird, be listed as 

endangered under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner(s), as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an 

April 29, 2005, letter to the petitioner, 

we responded that we received the 

petition for the smooth-billed ani, and 

that because of inadequate funding for 

listing-related actions pursuant to court 

orders and judicially approved 

settlement agreements, we would not be 

able to address the petition at that time. 

We also noted that the species had been 

included on the list of birds of 

conservation concern in peninsular 

Florida in 2002 and that we had begun 

to compile information on this and 

other species of conservation concern in 

peninsular Florida. This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Species Information 

The smooth-billed ani (Crotophaga 

ani) is a member of the Family 

Cuculidae (cuckoo family). We concur 

with the petition’s taxonomic 

characterization of the smooth-billed ani 

(Crotophaga ani) as a species. This 

species is a resident in parts of Florida, 

the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and 

South America (Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994, p. 355; Quinn and 

Startek-Foote 2000, section 3, p. 1). The 

smooth-billed ani is a medium-sized 

cuculid, with a length of 12–14 inches 

(30–36 centimeters) and a mass of 

approximately 3.5 ounces (100 grams) 

(Ridgway 1916 and Loflin 1983 as cited 

in Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, 

section 2, p. 1). Males tend to be slightly 

larger than females (Quinn and StartekFoote 2000, section 2, p. 1). This species 

is distinguished by: all-black plumage, 

glossed with greenish or violet 

iridescence in parts; a long tail 

(approximately 6.8 in (17.2 cm)); a large, 

arched, and laterally compressed bill, 

usually showing a raised hump on the 

basal half of the upper mandible; and a 

distinctive call, including a whining 

‘‘ah-nee,’’ which is usually delivered 1– 

4 times, along with other vocalizations 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

1, p. 1; section 2, p. 1; section 8, p. 1). 

Immature birds resemble adults, but 

their plumage contains a mixture of dull 

and glossy blackish feathers, and the bill 

is slightly shallower (Quinn and StartekFoote 2000, section 2, p. 1). Juveniles 

are also similar in appearance to adults, 

but with plumage that is entirely dull 

blackish in color with little or no gloss, 

and a smaller bill without a raised 

hump (Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, 

section 2, p. 1). 

The smooth-billed ani occurs over a 

considerable global geographic range. It 

is considered a resident from central 

Florida south through the Caribbean, 

and south into Central and South 

America through Ecuador and northern 

Argentina, except in the Andes 

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994, p. 355; 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

3, p. 1). The species is generally 

nonmigratory; however, some local 

movement occurs during the dry season, 

when many groups leave their territories 

and gather in large flocks with 

neighboring groups (Loflin 1983 as cited 

in Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, 

section 5, p. 1). Records in the Dry 

Tortugas suggest some movement 

between the Caribbean and Florida 

(Robertson and Woolfenden 1992 as 

cited in Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 

241). This species may regularly 

disperse from the Bahamas and Cuba to 

Florida (Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 

242). The smooth-billed ani has been 

described as a casual occurrence north 

to North Carolina and west to Louisiana 

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994, p. 355). 

Vagrant records elsewhere in the United 

States are scarce; few acceptable records 

outside of Florida exist (e.g., New Jersey 

or Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Georgia) (Mlodinow and 

Karlson 1999, pp. 241–242). 

Throughout its range, and year round, 

the smooth-billed ani occupies savanna, 

disturbed and human-altered rural and 

suburban areas, open areas with brush 

or scrub, plantations, gardens, 

farmlands, and forest clearings (Quinn 

and Startek-Foote 2000, section 6, p. 1). 

Preferred habitat is considered to be 

open grassland (Blanchard 2000, p. 5). 

In Puerto Rico, Guyana, Cuba, Jamaica, 

Colombia, and the Gala ́pagos Islands, 

this species uses cow pastures and 

adjacent lands (Quinn and Startek-Foote 

2000, section 6, p. 1). In south Florida, 

density was positively correlated with 

amount of grazing lands and human 

habitation (Loflin 1983 as cited in 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

6, p. 1). In general, this species typically 

occupies lowlands, often near the coast, 

preferring a source of water (e.g., marsh, 

pond, river) and avoiding dense forest 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

6, p. 1). In a study area in south Florida, 

the smooth-billed ani was found to 

occupy discontinuous patches of habitat 

(e.g., parks, nurseries, small 

undeveloped plots of land) and avoid 

tall grasses of the Everglades (Loflin 

1983 as cited in Quinn and StartekFoote 2000, section 6, p. 1). 

Additionally, the species has been 

found within and near impoundments 

within the Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Service 1997, p. 

48; 1998, p. 50; 1999a, p. 65; 2003a, pp. 

113–114) and on various outer islands 

within the Florida Keys NWR Complex 

(Service 1992, p. 85; 1999b, p. 60; 2001, 

p. 69; 2003b, p. 84). 

This species feeds primarily on 

insects and small vertebrates, especially 

when these forage items are abundant 

during the rainy season; fruit is an 

important component of the diet during 

the dry season (Quinn and Startek-Foote 

2000, section 1, p. 1 and section 7, pp. 

1–2; Blanchard 2000, p. 5). Fields of 

grass are typically used for foraging; 

more densely vegetated stream edges 

may be used for nesting and roosting 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

6, p. 1; Blanchard 2000, p. 5). The 

smooth-billed ani is a highly social bird 

that nests, roosts, feeds, and travels in 

pairs or in communal groups (Quinn 

and Startek-Foote 2000, section 9, p. 3; 

Blanchard 2000, pp. 5–6). This species 

uses a communal breeding system in 

which a number of females lay eggs and 

incubate in the same nest; late-laying 

females bury the eggs of early-laying 

females with twigs and leaves, which 

can create a number of layers, but only 

the top layer of eggs eventually hatches 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

1, p. 1; Blanchard 2000, pp. 1–101). 

Blanchard (2000, p. 30) found evidence 

for monogamy, polygamy (extra-pair 

fertilizations), and brood parasitism 

(egg-laying in the nests of other birds) in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23267 

both single-pair and group nests in a 

study of the species’ communal 

breeding system in Puerto Rico. 

Observed nesting groups of smoothbilled anis ranged from a single pair to 

12 adults and nests containing more 

than 30 eggs (Blanchard 2000, p. 11). 

Female-female competition at the nest 

may result in the destruction of other 

females’ eggs through egg burial under 

nesting material (Blanchard 2000, p. 11). 

The smooth-billed ani has a large 

global population, estimated in 2004 to 

be 20,000,000 individuals, with less 

than or equal to 1 percent occurring in 

the United States (Rich et al. 2004, p. 

70). Global long-term trend data did not 

exist at that time (Rich et al. 2004, p. 

70). In general, little information on 

global population size or trends was 

available in Service files at the time the 

petition was received. Available 

information suggested that the smoothbilled ani’s conservation status was ‘‘not 

threatened’’ (Quinn and Startek-Foote 

2000, section 12, p. 1). The species was 

not recognized as a National Audubon 

Society Watch List Species or 

Stewardship Species (Rich et al. 2004, 

p. 70). The Audubon Watch List 

categorizes species on the list if they are 

declining rapidly and/or have very 

small populations or limited ranges and 

face major conservation threats (e.g., 

typically species of global conservation 

concern) or if the species are either 

declining or rare (e.g., typically species 

of national conservation concern). 

The smooth-billed ani is an 

uncommon-to-rare resident of southern 

Florida (Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 

241). Prior to the 1930s, few records 

existed in Florida, suggesting that the 

species was rare or poorly known 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

3, p. 2). Sprunt (1939, pp. 335–336) 

documented the first record of breeding 

in Florida in 1938. By the late 1930s, the 

species was considered established in 

the Lake Okeechobee area, and 

subsequently breeding was recorded 

elsewhere in south Florida (Quinn and 

Startek-Foote 2000, section 3, p. 2). The 

species’ status in Florida remained 

relatively unchanged until the 1960s, 

when increasing numbers were recorded 

in central and north Florida (Quinn and 

Startek-Foote 2000, section 3, p. 2). 

Based upon National Audubon Society 

Christmas Bird Counts, the number 

observed per party hour (p-hr) (average 

number of counts per party per hour 

spent censusing) tripled by 1962–63, 

reaching 0.17 per p-hr in West Palm 

Beach and 2.41 per p-hr in Fort 

Lauderdale (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 241). In the 1960s the species 

was fairly common to common from the 

Everglades north to Brevard County on 

the east coast and Lee County on the 

west coast (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 241). By 1968–69, the number 

observed reached 1.51 per p-hr in West 

Palm Beach and 4.20 per p-hr in Fort 

Lauderdale (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 241). 

Numbers appeared to have peaked in 

Florida during the period 1968–1976, 

when the species was recorded north to 

Jacksonville Beach (Duval County) in 

the east and St. Petersburg 

(Hillsborough County) in the west 

(Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 241; 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

3, p. 2). At that time, numbers observed 

were typically in the 3.0–4.0 per p-hr 

range in Fort Lauderdale, while Fort 

Pierce reached 1.87 per p-hr and Sanibel 

Island/Captiva Island reached 0.41 per 

p-hr (Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 

241). By winter 1977–1978, numbers 

had declined sharply, returning to mid1960s levels (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 241). This decline continued, 

and by 1988–1989, total numbers were 

comparable to those reported in the 

1950s (Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 

241). The decline continued in Florida 

into the 1990s, and by 1998, the smoothbilled ani was found locally from the 

Florida Keys north to West Palm Beach 

on the east coast, and north to Collier 

County on the west coast (Mlodinow 

and Karlson 1999, pp. 241–242). 

Mlodinow and Karlson (1999, p. 242) 

suggested that the status of the smoothbilled ani in Florida in 1998 may be the 

norm rather than an aberration. 

Available information in Service files 

suggests that the species uses 

Loxahatchee NWR (Service, annual 

narrative reports from 1996 to 2005) and 

the Florida Keys NWR Complex 

(Service, annual narrative reports from 

1939 to 2003). According to a notation 

in the 2000 annual narrative report from 

Loxahatchee NWR, local long-time 

birders have indicated that the numbers 

of smooth-billed anis in south Florida 

and on the Refuge have declined 

significantly and that annual Christmas 

Bird Counts are showing the same trend 

(Service 2000, p. 110). 

The reasons for expansion and 

contraction of the species’ range in 

Florida are not known. Expansion may 

have been facilitated by residential 

development, which resulted in 

anthropogenic habitat changes that 

initially favored this species (Mlodinow 

and Karlson 1999, p. 242). However, 

continued residential and agricultural 

development, which reduced suitable 

habitat, and exceptionally cold winters 

during the 1970s may have contributed 

to subsequent declines (Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994, p. 357; Mlodinow and 

Karlson 1999, p. 242). Overall, the 

reasons for the decline in south Florida 

are not clear (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 242; National Audubon Society 

2001, p. 335). 

The smooth-billed ani was one of 668 

taxa evaluated in an effort to help 

prioritize vertebrate conservation efforts 

in Florida (Millsap et al. 1990, pp. 3– 

57). The evaluation system ranked taxa 

(species and subspecies) according to 

biological vulnerability, extent of 

current knowledge of population status, 

and management needs (Millsap et al. 

1990, pp. 3–57). During this ranking 

process, the smooth-billed ani was not 

considered to be an imperiled taxon in 

Florida as indicated from its biological 

score, which was based upon facets of 

its distribution, abundance, and life 

history (Millsap et al. 1990, pp. 28–29). 

Information available in Service files 

at the time the petition was received 

indicated that, in 2002, the Service’s 

Division of Migratory Bird Management 

included the smooth-billed ani as a bird 

of conservation concern in peninsular 

Florida in its report, entitled ‘‘Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2002’’ (Service 

2002, p. 68). The purpose of the report 

was to identify migratory and 

nonmigratory birds of the United States 

and its territories that are of 

conservation concern to encourage 

coordinated and proactive conservation 

actions among Federal, State, and 

private partners (Service 2002, p. 3). 

The overall goal of that report was to 

accurately identify the migratory and 

nonmigratory bird species (beyond 

those already designated as federally 

threatened or endangered) that 

represented the Service’s highest 

conservation priorities and draw 

attention to species in need of 

conservation action (Service 2002, p. 3). 

The geographic scope of this endeavor 

comprised the United States in its 

entirety, including island ‘‘territories’’ in 

the Pacific and Caribbean (Service 2002, 

p. 1). Although the smooth-billed ani 

was identified as one of 78 birds of 

conservation concern in the Southeast, 

only the U.S. mainland portion of the 

Region was identified as of concern; 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

were not identified as of concern 

(Service 2002, p. 68). In addition, the 

report does not include foreign 

countries. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species may warrant listing as 

threatened or endangered as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the threats to the smoothbilled ani, as presented in the petition 

and other information available in our 

files, is substantial, thereby indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Our evaluation of this 

information is presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition acknowledges that the 

smooth-billed ani’s historic range in the 

United States has largely been restricted 

to southern Florida (Bent 1940; Terres 

1980, p. 146) and that the species is 

considered common in many parts of its 

range throughout the Caribbean, 

including the Bahamas. The petition 

states that numerous records in the Dry 

Tortugas during the last 150 years 

indicate that the species is capable of 

traveling from Cuba to Florida (Birds of 

North America Online). The petition 

indicates that the species was reported 

in low numbers in Florida during the 

1800s and early 1900s (Sprunt 1932; 

Bent 1940), with the first report of 

breeding in Florida in 1938 (Sprunt 

1932; Terres 1980, p. 146). It also cites 

records from Louisiana and North 

Carolina dating back to the early 1800s 

(Bent 1940). The petition suggests that 

the species seems to have experienced 

an increase in population from the late 

1950s through the early 1970s, and then 

a rapid decline from the 1970s to 2005. 

The petition claims that smooth-billed 

anis are extremely rare everywhere in 

the United States, noting data from 

various National Audubon Society 

Christmas Bird Counts. 

The petition indicates that the species 

generally prefers ‘‘open’’ habitats, such 

as weedy and shrubby fields, pastures, 

farmland, and occasionally residential 

areas. Based upon a variety of 

unspecified sources, the petition states 

that the species is not commonly found 

in heavily forested or extensive 

marshes. 

The petition states that rapid human 

population growth and associated 

development throughout peninsular 

Florida, much of it occurring within the 

species’ preferred habitat and historic 

range, may be a potential contributor to 

the decline of the smooth-billed ani. 

The petition provides the following 

statement: ‘‘Apparently [the ani is] 

declining as southern Florida continues 

to develop, and the brushland shrub/ 

scrub habitat is lost (Alsop 2002).’’ No 

additional information or citations 

relating to habitat loss as a threat are 

given in the petition. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The smooth-billed ani appears to have 

declined from previous high levels in 

Florida (Stevenson and Anderson 1994, 

pp. 356–357; Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 242; National Audubon Society 

2005, pp. 1–3). However, it has been 

suggested that this species’ current 

status in Florida may be the norm rather 

than an aberration (Mlodinow and 

Karlson 1999, p. 242). It was not until 

1938 that the species was established 

and breeding in Florida (Sprunt 1939, 

pp. 335–336; Stevenson and Anderson 

1994, p. 355). One hypothesis suggests 

that prior to the World War I era, south 

Florida had little suitable smooth-billed 

ani habitat, since it was largely a 

wetland surrounded by an inner zone of 

pine forests and outer zones of 

mangroves and sandy beaches 

(Mlodinow and Karlson 1999, p. 242). 

Substantial anthropogenic changes 

beginning in the 1920s, consisting of 

agricultural development and low-level 

residential development, may have 

created enough suitable habitat for 

dispersing anis to successfully colonize 

south Florida in the 1930s (Mlodinow 

and Karlson 1999, p. 242). Over time, 

residential development increased and 

more intensive agricultural practices 

and other factors may have reduced 

suitable habitat and dispersal habitat, 

causing decreased reproductive success 

and lower recruitment (Mlodinow and 

Karlson 1999, p. 242). Alsop (2002, p. 

212) noted that the smooth-billed ani is 

apparently declining in south Florida as 

the area continues to develop and 

brushland shrub/scrub habitat is lost. 

Information in our files supports the 

statement in the petition that human 

population growth and associated landuse changes are occurring in peninsular 

Florida, and that additional growth is 

expected in the future. In the 50 years 

prior to 1994, more than 8 million acres 

[(3.24 million hectares (ha)] of forest 

and wetland habitats (roughly 24 

percent of the State) were cleared to 

accommodate an expanding human 

population (Cox et al. 1994, p. i). 

Statewide, between 1936 and 1987, 

cropland and rangeland increased by 

4.25 million acres (1.72 million ha), or 

30 percent; urban areas increased by 

3.95 million acres (1.60 million ha), or 

538 percent; herbaceous wetlands 

declined by 3.88 million acres (1.57 

million ha), or 56 percent; and forests 

declined by 4.30 million acres (1.74 

million ha), or 21 percent (Service 

1999c, p. 4–128). 

Although some anthropogenic habitat 

changes may initially favor this species, 

areas where the smooth-billed ani can 

be locally found in Florida, from the 

Keys north to West Palm Beach on the 

east coast and Collier County on the 

west coast (Mlodinow and Karlson 

1999, p. 242), are expected to grow and 

become more urbanized. The human 

population within south Florida 

surpassed 1 million (337 persons per 

square mile (mi2) (130 persons per 

square kilometer (km2)) in 1950, 3 

million (1,013 persons per mi2 (391 

persons per km2)) in 1970, and 6 million 

(2,020 persons per mi2 (780 persons per 

km2)) in 1990 (Service 1999c, p. 4–127). 

South Florida’s human population was 

projected to reach 8.2 million (2,771 

persons per mi2 (1,070 persons per 

km2)) by 2010 (Floyd 1996 as cited in 

Service 1999c, p. 4–127). With 

continuing habitat loss and human 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23269 

population growth, it is likely that 

habitat within the smooth-billed ani’s 

range in south Florida will continue to 

be impacted. 

The petition did not contain 

information indicating that habitat loss 

and modification are threats to the 

smooth-billed ani elsewhere in its range 

(i.e., outside south Florida). Throughout 

its range, this species uses disturbed 

and human-altered rural and suburban 

areas, open areas with brush or scrub, 

plantations, gardens, farmlands, forest 

clearings, cow pastures, and grazing 

lands with human habitation (Loflin 

1983 as cited in Quinn and StartekFoote 2000, section 6, p. 1; Quinn and 

Startek-Foote 2000, section 6, p. 1). 

Although the landscape throughout the 

smooth-billed ani’s considerable range 

is undoubtedly changing, we do not 

have evidence to suggest that the 

species is threatened by habitat loss and 

modification. In fact, ongoing 

disturbance of forest habitats by humans 

may create additional suitable habitat 

for smooth-billed anis, suggesting the 

possibility that populations are 

increasing within the range of the 

species (Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, 

section 11, p. 3). 

Information in the petition regarding 

rapid human population growth and 

associated development in Florida is 

supported by information in our files. 

Although increased habitat loss and 

human population growth may have 

affected the smooth-billed ani in south 

Florida, reasons for the expansion and 

contraction of its range in Florida are 

unclear. The species uses a wide array 

of disturbed and human-altered habitats 

(Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

6, p. 1). Expansion in Florida may have 

temporarily been facilitated by 

anthropogenic habitat changes that 

initially favored this species; however, 

the species’ current status in Florida 

may be the norm (Mlodinow and 

Karlson 1999, p. 242). 

We currently have no information, 

and the petition provided no 

information, to support a determination 

that this factor is a substantial risk to the 

species in south Florida or elsewhere in 

its considerable range. In summary, we 

find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information in our files, does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the smooth-billed ani’s 

habitat or range, especially given that 

the species uses a wide array of 

disturbed habitats over a considerable 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition did not present 

information, nor do we have 

information in our files, suggesting that 

overutilization is threatening the 

smooth-billed ani. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petition did not provide any 

information concerning disease or 

predation. Information available in 

Service files does not report evidence of 

diseases. For instance, Quinn and 

Startek-Foote (2000, section 11, p. 2), 

found no reports of diseases for this 

species. Two species of mallophaga 

(bird lice) have been reported in the 

species (Davis 1940 as cited in Quinn 

and Startek-Foote 2000, section 11, p. 

2). However, we do not have any 

information that ties these ectoparasites 

to any specific disease affecting the 

smooth-billed ani. Based upon limited 

information in Service files, disease is 

not considered to be a threat for the 

smooth-billed ani. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The smooth-billed ani may be 

vulnerable to predators, because it is an 

awkward, slow-flying bird (Stevenson 

and Anderson 1994, p. 357). However, 

the species also employs a sentinel 

system, with usually one individual 

positioned at an open, elevated site to 

warn others of predators (Loflin 1983 as 

cited in Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, 

section 9, p. 4). In addition, Merritt 

(1953 as cited in Stevenson and 

Anderson 1994, p. 357) has postulated 

that a very disagreeable odor given off 

when the bird is alarmed ‘‘probably 

tends to discourage predation.’’ Smoothbilled anis have been attacked or taken 

by sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter 

striatus), fish crows (Corvus ossifragus), 

climbing rats (Rattus rattus), and feral 

cats (Felis catus) (Loflin 1983 as cited in 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

9, p. 4; Startek 1997 as cited in Quinn 

and Startek-Foote 2000, section 9, p. 4; 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

9, p. 4). In a limited study, Blanchard 

(2000, p. 45) noted a high incidence of 

egg and chick predation, documenting 

predation at 7 of 10 nests in Puerto Rico, 

most likely from brown rats (Rattus 

norvegicus) and feral cats. Predation 

rates are not available, but group 

vigilance likely limits diurnal predation 

to low levels (Davis 1940 as cited in 

Quinn and Startek-Foote 2000, section 

11, p. 2). 

In summary, disease is not known to 

be a threat to the species. Although 

information on predation within our 

files is limited, we do not have reason 

to believe that predation is a threat to 

the species. Accordingly, we find that 

the information in our files does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

due to disease or predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition did not present 

information, nor do we have 

information in our files, suggesting that 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms is a threat to the species. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition suggests that one popular 

explanation for the smooth-billed ani’s 

recent decline in Florida may have been 

periods of cold temperatures in south 

Florida; however, the petition also 

provides information that contradicts 

this explanation. Smooth-billed anis 

using the Clewiston area near Lake 

Okeechobee were reported to have 

survived subfreezing temperatures in 

the 1940s (reportedly 28 °F in 1944 and 

26 °F in 1947) (Dilley 1948, p. 314). The 

petition suggests that the apparent 

increase in the smooth-billed ani’s 

numbers during the late 1950s and early 

1960s (National Audubon Society 

Christmas Bird Count data) coincides 

with two cold spells, but the beginning 

of the species’ decline in the early 1970s 

does not correlate with a notable period 

of cold weather (McGovern 2004). The 

petition indicates that the severest cold 

weather to hit south Florida was during 

the 1980s, when smooth-billed ani 

populations continued to decline, but 

the species’ decline had begun before 

this time. 

The petition suggests that another 

explanation for this species’ decline in 

Florida may be hurricanes, but this also 

does not seem to be reinforced by data. 

The petition indicates that smoothbilled ani populations increased from 

1957 to 1974, when at least five 

hurricanes impacted south Florida. The 

petition indicates that as populations 

began to decrease in the 1970s and 

1980s, south Florida was struck by only 

two hurricanes (Barnes 1998). 

The petition, citing Birds of North 

America Online, suggests that possible 

ingestion of pesticides resulting from 

this species’ insect diet is another 

explanation for its decline. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The petition suggests, without 

reference, that smooth-billed anis in the 

United States have undergone 

inexplicable natural population 

fluctuations for centuries and that no 

research has been conducted to 

investigate this phenomenon. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The Service has only limited 

information regarding the possible 

effects of cold temperatures on the 

smooth-billed ani. The information 

regarding cold temperatures as a factor 

appears to be reliable based upon 

limited information in Service files. The 

decrease in numbers of smooth-billed 

anis in south Florida from the late 1970s 

through 1986 has been suggested to be 

due possibly to a series of unusually 

cold winters, which may have affected 

birds directly or indirectly through the 

reduction of the supply of insects 

(Stevenson and Anderson 1994, p. 357). 

Mlodinow and Karlson (1999, p. 242) 

acknowledged that a series of cold 

winters during the late 1970s likely 

played a role (citing Robertson and 

Woolfenden 1992), but suggested that a 

continued decrease in the population 

does not seem to be explained by 

weather alone. The petition does not 

present information, nor does the 

Service have information in our files, 

indicating that cold temperatures are a 

threat to the species elsewhere in its 

range. 

The Service has little information 

regarding the possible effects of 

hurricanes on the smooth-billed ani. 

The petition acknowledges that data do 

not seem to reinforce the explanation 

that hurricanes caused declines in south 

Florida. Also, the petition does not 

present information indicating that 

hurricanes are a threat to the species 

elsewhere in its range. In Jamaica, the 

mean number of smooth-billed anis in 

10 habitats before and after Hurricane 

Gilbert in 1988 was not significantly 

different (Wunderle et al. 1992, pp. 

164–165). Similarly, no obvious decline 

in smooth-billed ani abundance was 

observed after Hurricane Georges in 

Puerto Rico in 1998 (Quinn and StartekFoote 2000, section 11, p. 2). In general, 

stochastic (random) events are not likely 

to pose a significant threat to the 

smooth-billed ani, due to the species’ 

considerable population size and 

geographic range. 

The information provided in the 

petition regarding pesticides as a factor 

appears to be reliable, based upon 

limited information in Service files. 

Stevenson and Anderson (1994, p. 357) 

suggested that the smooth-billed ani’s 

diet of insects could result in the 

ingestion of pesticides in the 

agricultural areas that the species often 

inhabits; they list this as an adverse 

factor that may have contributed to the 

smooth-billed ani’s decrease in 

abundance in Florida from the late 

1970s through 1986. Mlodinow and 

Karlson (1999, p. 242) suggested that 

pesticides may have also reduced food 

sources, and that this reduction was one 

possible factor contributing to the 

decline in Florida. Neither the petition 

nor the Service’s files present 

information indicating that pesticides 

are a threat to the smooth-billed ani 

elsewhere in its range. 

The Service has little information on 

natural population fluctuations of the 

smooth-billed ani in Florida or 

elsewhere in its range. The petition 

suggests, without reference, that 

smooth-billed anis in the United States 

have undergone inexplicable natural 

population fluctuations for centuries 

and that no research has been 

conducted to investigate this 

phenomenon. Based upon limited 

information in our files, it appears that 

the species has received relatively little 

research attention. More research is 

needed on the species’ mating system 

and genetic relationships, reproductive 

and social behaviors, habitat quality, 

and foraging patterns (Quinn and 

Startek-Foote 2000, section 15, p. 1). 

Blanchard (2000, pp. 1–101) studied the 

communal breeding system of the 

species in Puerto Rico. The petition did 

not present information indicating that 

such natural population fluctuations are 

a threat to the smooth-billed ani 

elsewhere in its range. We have no 

additional information to suggest that 

demographic or other factors are a threat 

to the smooth-billed ani in Florida or 

elsewhere in its range. 

Information provided by the 

petitioner regarding cold temperatures, 

hurricanes, pesticides, and natural 

population fluctuations is generally 

supported by the limited information in 

our files. However, we have no 

information or data that suggest that 

such factors are threats to the smoothbilled ani in south Florida or elsewhere 

in its range. In summary, we find that 

the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information in 

our files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted due to natural or 

anthropogenic factors, especially given 

that the species appears to have a large 

population over a considerable range. 

Finding 

In summary, the petition does not 

present substantial information, because 

it does not provide specific information 

on threats to the smooth-billed ani and 

only alludes to possible threats within 

Florida, which is a small portion of the 

species’ considerable range. Information 

in our files indicates that the smoothbilled ani has a large population size, 

uses a wide array of disturbed habitats, 

and occupies a considerable range. 

While we agree with the petitioner’s 

general statements about possible causes 

for the species’ recent decline in 

Florida, information in our files suggests 

that the species’ current status in 

Florida may be the norm; the species 

was not known to breed in Florida prior 

to the late 1930s. Neither the petition 

nor our files contain information 

suggesting that threats affecting the 

species’ continued existence occur 

elsewhere in its range. 

As for the threats identified in this 

petition, we found no information to 

suggest that they are acting on the 

smooth-billed ani such that the species 

may become extinct now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

conclude that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

listing the smooth-billed ani under the 

Act as threatened or endangered may be 

warranted at this time. Although we 

will not review the status of the species 

at this time, we encourage interested 

parties to continue to gather data that 

will assist with the conservation of the 

smooth-billed ani. If you wish to 

provide information regarding the 

smooth-billed ani, you may submit your 

information or materials to the Field 

Supervisor/Listing Coordinator, South 

Florida Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES), at any time. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or upon request 

from the South Florida Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

Paula Halupa of the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23271 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9975 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS